4 ms·

> Zoroastrians are not "liberal". No religion with priests can ever be "liberal". It's the original religion with a zillion rules of dos and donts. I don't kno

> Zoroastrians are not "liberal". No religion with priests can ever be "liberal". It's the original religion with a zillion rules of dos and donts. I don't know about ancient things, but I can say being raised Zoroastrian I was never, ever given a rule worded with a "don't". Do good deeds - Yes Do say good words - Yes Do think good thoughts - Yes I was never (based on religious reasons) asked to not drink or smoke or be a glutton, etc. I'd find it hard to imagine you would even find such a "rule", let alone "zillion".

eternalban 5y ago
Well, what can I say. Sign of the times. /g You know, you can pick random Jews, Christians, and Muslims (myself included) who'll tell you a variation on the same religious rigor in their families. But the guidance and teachings of the prophet Zartosht are not a 3 line self-help pamphlet. After all, what is "good"? How do you make this determination? To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. To aid in the "Renovation of the Creation". So to sum up, yes, I believe you, and thus consider that your "religion" is basically no different than the "religion" of your contemporary Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and thus not really worth making a distinction about. How is that for a good thought?
- danans 5y ago
  > To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. That's pretty ridiculous on it's face. It is no more true than the claim that all Muslims are obliged to put the infidel to the sword or subjugation if they don't convert to Islam, or that Hindus are obliged to adhere to the idea that they are polluted if a lower caste person's shadow falls on them, or likewise for any religion. > How is that for a good thought? As a rule, anonymous targeted sarcasm on the Internet is never a good thought.
  - eternalban 5y ago
    It betrays a profound misunderstanding and immaturity on your part in spiritual matters to equate the central tenant of prophet Zartosht's conception of the role of Mankind in the cosmic scheme of existence and being with what is a superficial, and frankly ignorant, understanding of his successor prophet Muhammad's articulation of the same concerns. I am motivated in writing this response for the mature, inquisitive, reader who wishes to broaden his or her horizons in terms of understanding the shared heritage of Humanity as left to us by profound and significant individuals in the past. The analog of the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda (in the Arabic Qur'an called Al Aziz-Al Hakim, in English The Mighty-The Wise) and Ahriman in the Qur'an is when God tells Adam that Satan is "My enemy and your enemy, so treat him as an enemy". This metaphysical duality, presented as a central issue for sentient beings in both religions, with assurances in both religions as the ultimate "victory" of God and the "right minded" and vanquishing of the enemy, is a metaphysical (or if you prefer psychological) matter. The essence of the matter is the ontological requirement of "distinguishing" for the emergence of "form", which arises from division of the continuum (which is a Unity), i.e. the number 2. In capsule, the fundamental difference between sentient perceptions is that of those who believe in the primacy of meaning to form, and those who believe meaning arises from form. This is "the choice". & Apparently it is left to this Iranian "neo-Zoroastrian" Muslim to elucidate what precisely was the defining moment in the history of our people, the Iranian People. Iran, a feminine name (the sister of Iraj), is the name that our people adopted to distinguish ourselves from our "Indo-European" brethren. It means Aryan, and Aryan means "Noble Minded". (In the Gita, you have Krishna utter "Among the people I am the Arianman".) And what was the reason for this departure from the understanding of our Indian brethren? It was the message of the prophet Zartosht. Zartosht rejected the "Deava" and plutora of "gods" and properly considered them as "daemons". Zartosht asserted the primacy of the Creative Spirit and the corrosive destructive spirit of "The Lie" (or 'error', for the materialist). He rejected the pollution of the Earth, rejected the destruction of built environment, and rejected the "destructive" mindset. This is why in Iranian tongues, a "Deev" is a daemon while in Indian and European tongues is is "divine". And as Iranians we see comical manifestations of this metaphysical misunderstanding, such as for example, when the "Indo-European" readings of Buddhist scripture has "daeva" ("Gods" according to them) come to Buddha for "instruction", whereas we correctly note that these are "daemons" who come to the Realized One for illuminating instruction. (And in the Qur'an we have the "Jinn" -- in Sura 72 -- just as in Buddhist scripture, listen to the words of the Prophet to be instructed and illuminated.) The error of closed minded individuals who cling to cultural manifestations of timeless realizations of profound individuals of mankind is to seek the "other" in their kin and fall into the error of creating imaginal and false boundaries where none exist. This, properly understood, is the work of the "destructive enemy", on whom and its adherent there is an eternal ban in the 'Kingdom of God'. And to fight this, which is ultimately a personal and internal matter, is the foremost task of the thinking sentient being. As a matter of fact, for the thoughtful sentient, all metaphysical and "cosmic" matter are understood to be inner, psychological, affairs, the "inner Jihad". Truly for Seekers I shall speak of those things to be pondered, even by one who already knows, With Praise & Worship, for The LORD of Good Purpose The Mighty Wise One, and for Truth. Hear with your ears the best things, reflect with clear purpose, each man for himself, on the two choices for decision, being alert indeed to declare yourselves for Him before The Great Requital - Zartosht Wa Salaam.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  > So to sum up, yes, I believe you, and thus consider that your "religion" is basically no different than the "religion" of your contemporary Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and thus not really worth making a distinction about. How is that for a good thought? Sure, sounds like a very good thought. > After all, what is "good"? How do you make this determination? To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. To aid in the "Renovation of the Creation". Yeah, as far as I've understood it, the metaphysical stuff was just a way to get the message across and as a form of motivation because the implementation is difficult. Meanwhile, the message at its core is simple: Based on modern language Zarathustra would likely define "good" as "actions that directly and indirectly reduce scarcity for every individual", and/or "abundance mentality", and/or "act as if all games are positive sum games". FWIW, this would include reducing the scarcity of serotonin and/or dopamine and/or other chemicals in the brains of individuals. With that framework in mind, do whatever you want and don't worry about stumbling from the framework, just keep trying again and again. e.g. Its understood that it takes energy to follow this (or any) framework and some days you won't have the energy. Just try to follow the framework more often than you don't. e.g. its understood that we are not able to comprehend enough into the future or retain all data simultaneously, so just make the best decision you can in an appropriate timeframe and when appropriate (like if you indirectly/accidentally hurt someone) learn from previous mistakes. One extra suggestion is to make decisions that reduce the energy it will take you to follow the framework in the future. If needed, to motivate select individuals, you can add the metaphysical stuff back to the message. However, given how much we have already climbed the hierarchy of needs and no longer need a metaphysical reason to discuss the elimination of scarcity, I feel Zarathustra would no longer find it necessary to involve the metaphysical in their message. Anyways, I don't speak to the dead, nor am I a significant/profound individual from history, so read into how I've been raised and my inference with doubt. However please note, its not just me that is like this. I know no Zoroastrians (young or old) that would put the metaphysical above the physical, and I know quite a few Zoroastrians :)

eternalban 5y ago

Well, what can I say. Sign of the times. /g You know, you can pick random Jews, Christians, and Muslims (myself included) who'll tell you a variation on the same religious rigor in their families. But the guidance and teachings of the prophet Zartosht are not a 3 line self-help pamphlet. After all, what is "good"? How do you make this determination? To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. To aid in the "Renovation of the Creation". So to sum up, yes, I believe you, and thus consider that your "religion" is basically no different than the "religion" of your contemporary Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and thus not really worth making a distinction about. How is that for a good thought?

danans 5y ago
> To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. That's pretty ridiculous on it's face. It is no more true than the claim that all Muslims are obliged to put the infidel to the sword or subjugation if they don't convert to Islam, or that Hindus are obliged to adhere to the idea that they are polluted if a lower caste person's shadow falls on them, or likewise for any religion. > How is that for a good thought? As a rule, anonymous targeted sarcasm on the Internet is never a good thought.
- eternalban 5y ago
  It betrays a profound misunderstanding and immaturity on your part in spiritual matters to equate the central tenant of prophet Zartosht's conception of the role of Mankind in the cosmic scheme of existence and being with what is a superficial, and frankly ignorant, understanding of his successor prophet Muhammad's articulation of the same concerns. I am motivated in writing this response for the mature, inquisitive, reader who wishes to broaden his or her horizons in terms of understanding the shared heritage of Humanity as left to us by profound and significant individuals in the past. The analog of the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda (in the Arabic Qur'an called Al Aziz-Al Hakim, in English The Mighty-The Wise) and Ahriman in the Qur'an is when God tells Adam that Satan is "My enemy and your enemy, so treat him as an enemy". This metaphysical duality, presented as a central issue for sentient beings in both religions, with assurances in both religions as the ultimate "victory" of God and the "right minded" and vanquishing of the enemy, is a metaphysical (or if you prefer psychological) matter. The essence of the matter is the ontological requirement of "distinguishing" for the emergence of "form", which arises from division of the continuum (which is a Unity), i.e. the number 2. In capsule, the fundamental difference between sentient perceptions is that of those who believe in the primacy of meaning to form, and those who believe meaning arises from form. This is "the choice". & Apparently it is left to this Iranian "neo-Zoroastrian" Muslim to elucidate what precisely was the defining moment in the history of our people, the Iranian People. Iran, a feminine name (the sister of Iraj), is the name that our people adopted to distinguish ourselves from our "Indo-European" brethren. It means Aryan, and Aryan means "Noble Minded". (In the Gita, you have Krishna utter "Among the people I am the Arianman".) And what was the reason for this departure from the understanding of our Indian brethren? It was the message of the prophet Zartosht. Zartosht rejected the "Deava" and plutora of "gods" and properly considered them as "daemons". Zartosht asserted the primacy of the Creative Spirit and the corrosive destructive spirit of "The Lie" (or 'error', for the materialist). He rejected the pollution of the Earth, rejected the destruction of built environment, and rejected the "destructive" mindset. This is why in Iranian tongues, a "Deev" is a daemon while in Indian and European tongues is is "divine". And as Iranians we see comical manifestations of this metaphysical misunderstanding, such as for example, when the "Indo-European" readings of Buddhist scripture has "daeva" ("Gods" according to them) come to Buddha for "instruction", whereas we correctly note that these are "daemons" who come to the Realized One for illuminating instruction. (And in the Qur'an we have the "Jinn" -- in Sura 72 -- just as in Buddhist scripture, listen to the words of the Prophet to be instructed and illuminated.) The error of closed minded individuals who cling to cultural manifestations of timeless realizations of profound individuals of mankind is to seek the "other" in their kin and fall into the error of creating imaginal and false boundaries where none exist. This, properly understood, is the work of the "destructive enemy", on whom and its adherent there is an eternal ban in the 'Kingdom of God'. And to fight this, which is ultimately a personal and internal matter, is the foremost task of the thinking sentient being. As a matter of fact, for the thoughtful sentient, all metaphysical and "cosmic" matter are understood to be inner, psychological, affairs, the "inner Jihad". Truly for Seekers I shall speak of those things to be pondered, even by one who already knows, With Praise & Worship, for The LORD of Good Purpose The Mighty Wise One, and for Truth. Hear with your ears the best things, reflect with clear purpose, each man for himself, on the two choices for decision, being alert indeed to declare yourselves for Him before The Great Requital - Zartosht Wa Salaam.
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
> So to sum up, yes, I believe you, and thus consider that your "religion" is basically no different than the "religion" of your contemporary Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and thus not really worth making a distinction about. How is that for a good thought? Sure, sounds like a very good thought. > After all, what is "good"? How do you make this determination? To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. To aid in the "Renovation of the Creation". Yeah, as far as I've understood it, the metaphysical stuff was just a way to get the message across and as a form of motivation because the implementation is difficult. Meanwhile, the message at its core is simple: Based on modern language Zarathustra would likely define "good" as "actions that directly and indirectly reduce scarcity for every individual", and/or "abundance mentality", and/or "act as if all games are positive sum games". FWIW, this would include reducing the scarcity of serotonin and/or dopamine and/or other chemicals in the brains of individuals. With that framework in mind, do whatever you want and don't worry about stumbling from the framework, just keep trying again and again. e.g. Its understood that it takes energy to follow this (or any) framework and some days you won't have the energy. Just try to follow the framework more often than you don't. e.g. its understood that we are not able to comprehend enough into the future or retain all data simultaneously, so just make the best decision you can in an appropriate timeframe and when appropriate (like if you indirectly/accidentally hurt someone) learn from previous mistakes. One extra suggestion is to make decisions that reduce the energy it will take you to follow the framework in the future. If needed, to motivate select individuals, you can add the metaphysical stuff back to the message. However, given how much we have already climbed the hierarchy of needs and no longer need a metaphysical reason to discuss the elimination of scarcity, I feel Zarathustra would no longer find it necessary to involve the metaphysical in their message. Anyways, I don't speak to the dead, nor am I a significant/profound individual from history, so read into how I've been raised and my inference with doubt. However please note, its not just me that is like this. I know no Zoroastrians (young or old) that would put the metaphysical above the physical, and I know quite a few Zoroastrians :)